Clark supported unilateral action against Iraq in testimony before Congress

[Drake Tungsten]

Can you stand him lying about ever having had a change of mind?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

"General Wesley Clark Outlines Success Strategy in Iraq

South Carolina
November 6, 2003


Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon.

For more than a hundred years, graduates of South Carolina State University have gone on to serve this country - as teachers, lawyers, doctors, of course, soldiers. Your ROTC -- the Bulldog Battalion -- has commissioned more than 1,900 officers, including more minority officers than any other school in the country. You should all be very proud.

I want to talk to you today about the events unfolding a world away in Iraq, and my success strategy - a strategy that will make it possible for our soldiers to come home with both Iraq and America standing strong.

This morning I visited with the family of Darius Jennings, a courageous young man who gave his life this week in Iraq. He is the third graduate of Orangeburg-Wilkinson High School to give his life for our country in Iraq. It's clear that Darius was a caring man, who loved his family and his country. We are all grateful for his service and we should honor it today.

The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate. Last Sunday, 15 of our soldiers were killed and 27 wounded when their helicopter was brought down. Another two were killed today. Our troops are stretched too thin. Other countries have been asked to send reinforcements. They have refused. And now more young American men and women are being asked to do one-year tours in a foreign land than at anytime since Vietnam.

Let me be clear: there has been some real progress in Iraq. Iraqis have a better future with Saddam Hussein out of power. In many areas, life is improving. It is inspiring to see brave Iraqis working with Americans to rebuild their country. But seven months after the fall of Saddam; violence is growing, and the enemy's morale and momentum is increasing with each deadly attack.

Saddam Hussein did pose a national security challenge. There is no dispute about that. He was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. If he didn't still have weapons of mass destruction, he was trying to acquire them. He remained hostile to his neighbors. But it was clear then and it is even clearer today that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the region or the world.

I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan.

The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests. Instead of basing life and death decisions on hard-headed realism, they were guided by wishful thinking. They were convinced that if only we could get rid of Saddam, democracy would bloom in Iraq and across the Middle East.

We are now more deeply involved in Iraq than we have been in any foreign country since Vietnam. Failure in Iraq will not only be a tragedy for Iraq. It will be a disaster for America and the world. It would give the terrorists of Al Qaeda a new base of operations, and a victory against America. It would weaken our moral authority, destroy respect for our power in the Middle East, and throw this region, the source of so many of the world's problems, into greater turmoil. No matter how difficult it will be, we cannot shirk from our duty. There can be no substitute for success.

Today, I want to discuss the decisions that propelled us into Iraq; what we should do now, and how we make sure this never happens again.

Number one: How did we get into Iraq?

Mr. Bush made a series of strategic mistakes that have put us in danger and plunged us into Iraq. After September 11, all Americans understood that fighting terror was America's number one national security priority. All Americans understood it was crucial that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.

Just as important - the world agreed with this approach. That is why we had international support for our war to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. But after the Taliban fell, instead of finishing off Al Qaeda, the very terrorists that continued to threaten us, the Administration began laying the ground work for a different war - a war in Iraq.

Our focus should have been on winning the war on terrorism - working with our allies to track down the terrorists themselves; to develop new initiatives in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to rip out the roots of radical terror, stop radical schools indoctrinating a new generation of terrorists day after day. That's how you win the war on terrorism.

Instead, the Bush Administration coined a new phrase - the axis of evil -- which essentially declared three dangerous nations enemies that we would deal with only by ultimatum. This phrase increased the threat it was designed to reduce - by encouraging these nations to speed up their programs to develop nuclear weapon to deter US action.

The Administration then offered the notion of pre-emption. American Presidents have always had the option of striking preemptively - it is inherent in the right of self-defense. And I would not hesitate to use that right if America was in imminent danger. But this policy was intended to be more -- much more. They made preemption the centerpiece of this Administration's national security strategy.

The Administration zeroed in on Iraq. But focusing on Iraq made no sense -- if the real goal was to protect the US either from weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. The hundred tons of loosely guarded nuclear bomb-making material and bioweapons in Russia presents a far more tempting target for terrorists. But this Administration has not made that a priority. The nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea were more advanced and more threatening than Iraq's, but for months they paid little attention. Their actions made no strategic sense; they downplayed the greater threats, and exaggerated the lesser one.

Finally, after training our forces on Iraq, the Administration essentially declared - we're going it alone. Instead of using diplomacy backed by force - as we did so effectively in the Balkans - this Administration's diplomacy was only a fig leaf. The United States was going to war no matter what. The Administration went to the UN with a "take it or leave it offer," which reflected a combination of indifference and disdain. It did not explore every diplomatic option; it did not do everything possible to bring allies with us.

The Administration compounded its error by failing to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security; hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction; and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were - you can't build a plan on hope....

Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.

As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people - and the enemy was emboldened.

When running for President, Mr. Bush assured voters he would have strong advisors in national security. But he didn't say what would happen if his advisors disagreed. Now we know. The advisors feud; the policy fractures, and our security suffers. In a Clark Administration, there won't be any question about whether the State Department drives policy, or the Pentagon drives policy, or the national security advisor drives policy. In a Clark Administration, the President will drive the policy. "

Seems to me he explained exactly why the change in heart.

[Sava]

I'm not terribly trusting of Clark... but I'd support him against Bush. ANYONE BUT BUSH!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Wesley Clark should get plenty of rest this weekend. And maybe take a good, long swim. Because starting Tuesday he'll need plenty of energy to outrun the multi-pronged army of critics pressing down on him as his crowds swell and his poll numbers rise in New Hampshire.

Some critics aren't waiting 'til Tuesday.

In the face of a barrage of attacks on everything from Iraq to Clark's past flirtations with the GOP, the general is setting up a "reading room" at a New Hampshire hotel where he will make thousands of documents from his past available to journalists.

Perhaps that is a bit more trustable?

[Ned]

"Saddam Hussein did pose a national security challenge. There is no dispute about that. He was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. If he didn't still have weapons of mass destruction, he was trying to acquire them. He remained hostile to his neighbors. But it was clear then and it is even clearer today that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the region or the world.

I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan.

The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests. Instead of basing life and death decisions on hard-headed realism, they were guided by wishful thinking. They were convinced that if only we could get rid of Saddam, democracy would bloom in Iraq and across the Middle East."

In the above, Clark makes the assumption that

1) Saddam had no chemical or bio weapons -- which varies from his testimony;

2) That Saddam would not employ terrorists to deliver the weapons -- which implies that Saddam had no links to terrorists that were hostile to the US and which too varies from his testimony, which reads

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001..."

"I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

Clark asserts that Iraq was a preemptive war. His testimony varies,

"And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Without getting into detail, Clark ignores the months of diplomacy with our allies and with the UN. He dismisses this as take it or leave it, when anyone who saw the diplomacy knows that this is not true. Bush did say that he would disarm Saddam if the UN would not, but did everything in his power to get real and effective action from the UN and from our allies. It was only after Saddam was offered one last chance to cooperate and failed that we went to war. Even on the very eve of war, Saddam was offered a chance to avoid it by simply leaving Iraq.

Clark paints an unreal caricature of his own prior positions and is very unfair to Bush on his diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation short of war.

[yaroslav]

.. but did everything in his power to get real and effective action from the UN and from our allies...

Ned, I'm very sorry to disagree. From this side of the big pond, it doesn't appear as if Bush did try everything to convince the European goverments, and much more important, the population. I wonder why Clinton get such a broad consesus and a deep feel of admiration in many Europeans' hearts while Bush not.

That doesn't mean anything: Bush could have already tried everything and we didn't notice, or I'm wrong and many Europeans already think that Bush tried everything, but the sense that I got is that.

And I'm one of the most pro-USA guys (probably, the most pro-USA guy) of all my friends.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
IIRC, most of them weren't fired for character & integrity issues.

Clark wasn't either. Clark was fired for political reasons having to do with his desire to asswhomp the Russkies for their preemptive move to secure that airfield that they had no legitimate business in securing. His little limey subordinate whined, and under NATO rules, was entitled to go through his domestic political route instead of strictly through the chain of command.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Clark paints an unreal caricature of his own prior positions and is very unfair to Bush on his diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation short of war.

"Diplomatic efforts?"

OK boys, we're puttin' together a posse to go string up Saddam because he's a bad guy. You're either with us or you're against us.

Bush jr.'s diplomatic exercise was certainly impressive compared to his fathers. Buying banana countries as "allies" despite a lack of substantial commitment, banking on the Turks allowing deployment of your forces, then having them mispositioned when the Turks (predictably) wouldn't play ball unless you paid their 25 billion price tag instead of the 15 you were willing to bribe them, and having your Euro allies consist of your perennial lapdog, and two pseudo-right wing minor countries who probably figured they were getting screwed in the EU, so why not cozy up to the US? Most impressive.

[DinoDoc]

Clark wasn't either.

That's not what Gen. Hugh Shelton said.

[Edan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Diplomatic efforts?"

OK boys, we're puttin' together a posse to go string up Saddam because he's a bad guy. You're either with us or you're against us.

Bush jr.'s diplomatic exercise was certainly impressive compared to his fathers. Buying banana countries as "allies" despite a lack of substantial commitment, banking on the Turks allowing deployment of your forces, then having them mispositioned when the Turks (predictably) wouldn't play ball unless you paid their 25 billion price tag instead of the 15 you were willing to bribe them, and having your Euro allies consist of your perennial lapdog, and two pseudo-right wing minor countries who probably figured they were getting screwed in the EU, so why not cozy up to the US? Most impressive.

Indeed. Galvinizing support against a ruthless dictator like Saddam, with his history, should have been downright easy. Instead, Bush bafooned his way through the diplomacy (Though some of that blame certainly lies at the feet of Powell, as Secratary of State)

[TCO]

The Kosovo war was much more poorly planned than Iraq.

Clark never got along with the other boys in the sandbox. That was obvious. I don't know how to characterize it other than that he seems like a cold fish. Not a stickler, not a bully. Just kind of hard to get a read on. He is smarter than the average flag officer. Extremely sparing with his time. (Did I mention no warmth, banter, etc.) I would not say that he is a real policy advocate or an intellectual like a COL Boyd or the like.

Clark was probably fired for political reasons (pushing the war that Cohen and the JCS didn't want). I don't know the details of this and how it played out and all that. EUCOM has always had a strange role to play with being a CINC while being SACEUR (NATO head) as well. Clarke took a little bit more of a view that this command was outside of US structure than in the past. I don't know that this was morally wrong or even legally wrong, but it was the main friction.

CINCs always have squabbles with the services and JCS. That is not new. But the NATO situation was a bit more aggravated.

Whatever you think of Clark, good or bad, it is useful to read his book ON MODERN WAR and to read some of the discussion about it.

--------------

Oh...and the other flags didn't like him. That could be bad or good or indifferent. I think much of the rancor you are hearing is just that stuff from what was the personality friction. If there is more to it, Shelton or others need to lay it on the line.

[TCO]

Originally posted by yaroslav


Ned, I'm very sorry to disagree. From this side of the big pond, it doesn't appear as if Bush did try everything to convince the European goverments, and much more important, the population. I wonder why Clinton get such a broad consesus and a deep feel of admiration in many Europeans' hearts while Bush not.

That doesn't mean anything: Bush could have already tried everything and we didn't notice, or I'm wrong and many Europeans already think that Bush tried everything, but the sense that I got is that.

And I'm one of the most pro-USA guys (probably, the most pro-USA guy) of all my friends.

hey we spent months on it. How much do we have to do to convince you. I would respect you much more if you were just Howard Dean and said it was a bad move.

Clinton was better liked than Bush because he was a Democrat. I remember being in Austria when Reagan was president. They were all aghast at him and though Carter much better.

[yaroslav]

TCO, I don't think it's about democrat/republicans, and I bet that there's a lot of people in my country who are not very sure about who is who (my sister for instance), and even then, they dislike Bush.

There are some people in the goverment, like Rumsfeld (sorry for the typos), who are not very liked in Europe and should have mantained a lower profile while the NU discuss. And many people had the feeling that the war was going to be unstoppable and that Bush'll attack Iraq no matter what Iraq did or didn't do.

As I told you, that feelings could be wrong, but I believe that many europeans feel the same last year and I wonder why the US didn't make a better, well, "campaign" to convince European population

That's just my humble opinion and I'm not telling you to be respected or not - I'm telling you because it's my opinion

EDIT:Grammatic.

[TCO]

So are you saying that you mistakenly let silly things get in the way of doing the right action?

[Ned]

What more could Bush have done to convince France and Germany to put real teeth into the UN resolutions. It appears to me and to a lot of Americans that the French and Germans were insincere and were doing everything in their power to avoid war at any cost which only incented Saddam to continue to delay and deny any real response to UNSC 1441. Just as it may appear to Europe that Bush was hell bent on war regardless of what Saddam did, it appears to us that France and Germany were hell bent on blocking war regardless of what Saddam did or did not do.

If someone could have done something to convince France and Germany to be serious about Saddam, what was it?

Clark to me seems to be saying either of three things:

1) I, Clark, could have convinced France and Germany to support our efforts to get Saddam to comply with UN resolutions; or
2) I, Clark, would have made no serious effort to get Saddam to comply; or
3) even if Saddam was not in compliance and was a security threat to the United States (as he stated in his testimony), I, Clark will not go to war without a UN resolution.

But, he advocated just the opposite of 3 in the case of Kosovo, did he not? So is real position is either 1 or 2.

I am sure that Clark will not argue that he would not have made a serious effort to get Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. Which means that Clark is saying 1.

But, then, one would ask, what would Clark have said to the French and Germans that is different from what Bush said?